Letter: Hoddle's offence

Robert Davies
Thursday 04 February 1999 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Glenn Hoddle's expression of unorthodox religious beliefs has been defended on the grounds of religious toleration. The British tradition of toleration owes its origins to the philosophical arguments of John Locke. Locke argues that we can never be sure that any religious view is false and so it is wrong to restrict a person's belief.

However, Locke circumscribes the right to religious toleration. Firstly, he limits toleration in cases where the expression of a religious belief is likely to be harmful or offensive to the commonwealth. It is for this reason that Locke withholds toleration from atheists and Catholics. Secondly, he argues that religious beliefs must stem from an individual's genuine concern with their spiritual well-being and a detailed consideration of the evidence available. All our religious beliefs must pass the test of reason. On these grounds Locke attacks the claims of "enthusiasts" who claim direct knowledge of God's divine will or sacrifice their judgement to the opinions of prophets or seers.

It seems to me that Mr Hoddle's comments fall foul of both the conditions Locke sets. As to the first, his comments were offensive to an important section of society. As to the second, it is possible that Hoddle's religious convictions stem from a genuine attempt to engage his rational faculties in the consideration of the nature and scope of faith. It seems far more likely, however, that Hoddle's views, characterised by a smorgasbord approach to faith, the dubious influence of Mrs Drewery, and an emphasis upon the power of spirituality over reason, are closer to Locke's "enthusiasts".

ROBERT DAVIES

School of Philosophy

University of Leeds

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in